Constitutional Delusions

There’s this one old episode of The Jerry Springer Show from the 1990’s that I’ve always recalled precisely because it is memorably humorous. Springer’s guests included the Ku Klux Klan — an obviously and historically foul organization, yet so miniscule in its existence today that we are barely made aware of it outside of Southern Poverty Law Center fundraising literature and shows like Jerry Springer. Regardless, as this one particular Klanswoman screamingly mixed her supposed Christian faith with her hatred of blacks and Jews, an audience member stood up and asked her if she realized that Jesus was Jewish. Without hesitation, the Klanswoman immediately shot back “Jesus was an American!”

Now I’m sure in this woman’s barely literate, crazy Klan mind this all made perfect sense. That in associating all things she might deem wholesome –hating blacks and Jews, worshipping Christ — that all of this properly belongs under the catch-all patriotic banner of Americanism, despite the fact that Christ walked the earth nearly 2000 years before the ratification of the United States Constitution. But while the first impulse is to rightly laugh, it’s amusing the extent to which many Americans’ perception of their Constitution and what it stands for is no less inaccurate than the Klanswoman’s perception of Jesus and what He stood for.

Case in point — each year the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, DC presents a “Defender of the Constitution” award. The 2011 recipient is former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The New American notes the absurdity: “Giving Rumsfeld an award for defending the Constitution is a bit like giving… Charlie Sheen an award for sobriety. Rumsfeld personally authorized the imprisonment of American citizens without trial and torture of detainees. He oversaw a ‘military commissions’ system he invented that had no authority in law and violated a variety of rights protected under the Constitution. Even a cursory look at Rumsfeld’s record as Secretary of Defense during the Bush administration would demonstrate that Rumsfeld openly and directly attacked Articles I, II, and VI of the Constitution as well as the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.”

The entire purpose of our Constitution is to limit government’s power, delegating enumerated and specific powers to make clear that no one — not even Congress or the President — is above the rule of law. If judging the last administration purely by Constitutional standards, many might consider Bush and company among the most lawless in American history. But for the sort of conservatives who still have some bizarre, philosophically incoherent and undoubtedly partisan attachment to Bush-era figures like Rumsfeld, the actual language and meaning of the Constitution is largely beside the point. Such conservatives still consider Rumsfeld to be on “their side” and he therefore becomes a “Defender of the Constitution” in much the same way Jesus automatically becomes an American to a crazy Klanswoman. Logic and reason have virtually nothing to do with such thinking. In making such outlandish claims, both groups are operating in a primarily emotional state of mind, making it possible to allow their ideological faith to dictate their own facts. Conservatives rarely confronted any facts or questioned their logic in supporting men like Bush and Rumsfeld, so why start now? Giving Rumsfeld a “Defender of the Constitution” award at CPAC this year simply reminds us of this lingering, almost childlike blind faith — and still represents the worst of the Republican Party.

When it comes to properly understanding and recognizing the original intent of the Constitution, liberals and their current president are certainly no better and arguably even worse than Bush. When this week, a federal judge declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional, the Left began to cry that “activist judges,” of the sort conservatives usually deplore, had hijacked liberals’ cherished healthcare “reform.” Of course this judge was absolutely correct in his ruling and liberal carping about an “activist judge” is completely baseless.

The role of a federal judge is to interpret the Constitution and make decisions accordingly. If a judge makes a ruling based on his own ideology, political sympathies or for any other reason that is outside or in violation of the written text of the Constitution, then he is an activist judge. Yet for a judge to determine whether or not Congress or the President has stepped out of constitutional bounds in their measures is precisely the intended role of federal judges. It is also just what Judge Roger Vinson did this week regarding Obamacare — unless liberals can find in Article 1, Section 8 where the Founders gave the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase health insurance.

Yet for all their criticism of Bush-era violations of civil and constitutional liberties, liberals are just as willing to violate the Constitution in the name of government action the Left generally supports. One could easily imagine the Left awarding government-run healthcare architects Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, a “Defender of the Constitution” prize similar to Rumsfeld’s, despite the fact that Obamacare is in direct violation of our founding charter — as recognized by not only a federal judge but anyone with common sense. But once again, liberals’ political faith dictates their own facts.

The late Joseph Sobran, former National Review writer, once said that the Constitution for modern Americans is much like Royal Family for today’s Brits. Both are still symbolic of tradition and order, despite the fact that they’ve been almost entirely stripped of their substantive authority. To the degree that the Constitution can still limit government, Americans will be protected from Washington’s appetite for power in precisely the way the Founders intended. Yet, in order to implement their own preferred big government schemes, most on the Right and Left continue to exhibit a willingness to circumvent the Constitution at will — and without a hint of irony or shame, still pretend to “defend” it.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 16 comments

16 Responses to Constitutional Delusions

American Jesus would not support mandatory health insurance. Hopefully the courts will eventually strike down mandatory auto insurance, where we don’t have any choice in the matter, as well as mandatory payroll taxes that finance Medicaid and Medicare. That way the government would not require any of us to pay for the good health and safety of our fellow citizens, and we would all be free to choose to be sick and poor.

“liberals and their current president are certainly no better and arguably even worse than Bush”
Clearly the push to address healthcare in America is substantially worse than the Bush/Rumsfield anti-constitutional wars, detentions, torture etc etc etc. Thanks for pointing this out!
May the blessings of American Jesus be upon us all…..
(I wonder if he’s related to Raptor Jesus?)

All talk of “mandatory” insurance is nonsense. People” volunteer” by having Social Security numbers,Drivers licenses,Marriage licenses,Business licenses, LLCs,etc.,etc. Once you apply for government permission then they,the government, call the tune. Also,over the last 60 years or so, talk of “anti-Constitutional” wars is nonsense. All American involvement in these wars(Korea,Vietnam,Iraq etc.etc.) have been done under the legality of the United Nations Treaty.It is done by using U.N. Resolutions. The only thing Congress does is appropriate the money. If Congress wants to end the wars all they have to do is cut off the funds. This is how the American involvement in Vietnam was ended.

I find it disconcerting to say the least that TAC would be so short-sighted as to think that a Federal Judge undoing a complex law based on over a year of legislative work is a good idea.

While it may be true that the insurance mandate exceeds Congresses authority under the Commerce Clause, certainly setting regulations on interstate commerce, such as age limits, coverage limits, and other items designed to create a standardized and consistently regulated market place across state lines is not.

In this case. The judge in Florida acted in an ideological fashion and encroached significantly on the authority of Congress under Article I of the Constitution. While many of the anti-Obama crowd will celebrate their “victory” by judicial fiat, then should take a moment to consider what precedent this activist judge is trying to set. Namely, that any legislation can be overturned if the judge doing the overturning has an ideological difference with the law.

I have to wonder if Judge Reinhardt of the 9th circuit had used the same logic to overturn the enitre Patriot Act, how many of those now celebrating would be demanding his impeachment for beaing a judicial activist? If nothing else the reaction by supposed conservatives to this ruling has exposed the level of hypocrisy on the right.

“personally authorized torture”–turning up the temperature in the cell or making the prisoner stand is not torture. Jack Hunter is just like the Chomsky/code pink civil liberties zealouts.
“held without bail” —yes cause they were prisoners of war can be held without a lawyer or trial. In WW2 none of the Italian ,German or Japanese POW’s got lawyers or trials..
Jack Hunter is just one big affectation. A poseur. A contrived contrarian just so he will be noticed and thought cool and “different”.
“military commissions”–yes Rumsfeld set them up and we are using them now…So it sounds like we will now lawyers on the battlefield ( like the old commissars from the USSR)

“While it may be true that the insurance mandate exceeds Congresses authority under the Commerce Clause, certainly setting regulations on interstate commerce, such as age limits, coverage limits, and other items designed to create a standardized and consistently regulated market place across state lines is not.”

You seem to concede what I have been maintaining for the last year and a half, namely that the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority, but you seem to focus instead on Judge Vinson’s ruling striking down the entire law. But isn’t that ruling giving effect to what proponents of the mandate have been saying all along: that the healthcare law cannot operate without the individual mandate forcing all people to pay into the system? Plus Judge Vinson relied on the absence of what Congress generally inserts into complicated legislation, a severability clause that preserves the rest of the legislation in the event a particular clause is struck down.

BTW one problem associated with the individual mandate that receives little or no attention is how Congress deliberately skewered the insurance rates to throw more of the burden of healthcare on the young. Since the young are generally healthy, profit-making insurance companies charge them about 1/6 of the premiums they charge the elderly for the same coverage. Under the new law, insurance companies can charge their captive young customers twice as much as they did before when they were basing their rates strictly on actuarial tables. Thus, the class of persons most affected by the individual mandate, the young, will be forced to pay much more for their insurance, despite the fact that cost was one major reason they choose not to carry nsurance in the first place. Of course, the new law contemplated that problem by providing subsidies to those who can’t afford insurance. Somewhere there is a pony in that circular reasoning. A real can of worms, isn’t it?

*** “All American involvement in these wars(Korea,Vietnam,Iraq etc.etc.) have been done under the legality of the United Nations Treaty.” ***

Um, last time I checked we were the United States of America and not the United States of the U.N. and still functioning as a nation under the U.S. Constitution that clearly empowers ONLY CONGRESS TO LEGALLY declare war – Not the President and certainly not the U.N.